Of course everyone's favorite game after watching the Academy Awards is to dis on the nominees and the winners, and to wax eloquent about who you think should have been nominated/won/been shunned/etc., and why.
This morning I heard some DJ's discussing the fact that "The Passion of the Christ" received few nominations in any category, despite being one of the most-watched films of the year. They compared it to films like "Finding Neverland" or "Million Dollar Baby", filmed on small budgets and with much smaller attendance and box office take.
The debate took standard form at the beginning, following expected lines. If a film was so popular, opined one, shouldn't it have received some nominations? If it could move that many people? Another countered that the Academy Awards are voted on by industry insiders, not the general public.
So far, so good. At this point I expected the normal discussion of "art vs. entertainment" and some sort of snotty comment about how movie people think they're "artistes" and always award art films with nominations, and refuse to reward films that the bourgeois masses like.
I was mistaken.
Instead, the next comment was how the film industry insiders aren't religious, so they wouldn't appreciate or reward a film like the PotC, nor consider it as relevant or moving as the fanatic unwashed masses would.
Okay, they didn't say "fanatic unwashed masses". But otherwise, that's what they said.
Their argument, as I followed it, was that in this case a popular film was unappreciated by Hollywood insiders because they're basically atheists, too liberal to consider a religious film a worthy artistic endeavor no matter how much work went into it, and no matter how much it moved the general public. From there, it was a small step to the earlier-predicted snotty comments about how Hollywood refuses to give awards to "popular" movies.
I think they're missing the point entirely.
The point is not whether or not actors and producers consider themselves great artists whether they are or aren't. The point is not whether or not the Hollywood community is religious (and plenty of them are). The point is not whether or not a film made a lot of money, or had huge audience numbers.
The point, as I see it, is that plenty of eminently worthy films go unnoticed every year, plenty of amazing scripts, plenty of incredible acting performances, pass in and out of theaters without striking a chord with the public in general. However, that does not mean that they were not worthy films, amazing scripts, or incredible acting. It just means they didn't get seen by a lot of people.
Aren't the Academy Awards sort of SUPPOSED to be the insider's view, unbiased by bottom line receipts? Aren't they supposed to be able look past the surface and say, "Holy cow, that was a crappy movie in general but what an amazing performance by supporting actor XYZ"? Aren't they supposed to be able to say, "Yes, this wasn't the sort of subject matter that the big majority of people would watch, but what a beautiful film"? Aren't they even supposed to be able to say, reluctantly if necessary, "Okay, that subject is definitely not my cup of tea but that was an amazing accomplishment to bring it to film"?
I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ". I've heard it's pretty phenomenal, but I can't really voice an opinion one way or the other. I do want to see it, but it honestly was too long and too intense for me to view except when I'm in a certain type of mood, which hasn't come around just yet. So I don't know if it was Oscar-worthy or not. And quite frankly, that is to a large extent a matter of opinion anyway.
My mom doesn't like the actor Mark Harmon. She doesn't like him because he starred in a movie about serial killer Ted Bundy years ago, which Mom saw on TV. Despite Mark's "good guy" image and reputation, he gave a chillingly convincing performance. Every time Mom sees him now she gets the creeps. The movie he was in, as far as I know, was never nominated for any awards, and neither was he. For all I know it went straight to TV and never hit a theater. I doubt it broke ratings records either. What I do know is that my mother, who rarely sits through an entire movie and prefers old Hollywood musicals, sat through the entire movie about a serial killer and it left an impact that she cannot shake. Great art? That depends on your perspective, but you can't deny it was effective.
Some films are beautiful, some are touching, some are painful, and some are unforgettable. Many are fun, or exciting, or stimulating. Plenty are enjoyable and easily appreciated without having any pretentions to "great art". All deserve recognition for their merits.
As I see it, the Academy Awards are just one standard among many by which films, scripts, and performances can be judged... but it carries the weight it does because few things in life are more sweet than having your peers say, "you did well!"
Recent Comments